Presence of Advocate Before FAA or CIC - whether permissible

[Rakesh Chitkara]

Whether the applicant can be accompanied by an Advocate before the First Appellate Authority or the CIC ? Can I please be guided on this point ?  Kind Regards, Rakesh Chitkara, Advocate Delhi High Court 9891678009

[M.K. Gupta]

Yes, why not, but in the garb of his Authorsed Representative. (AR). He can also appear before the CIC.

For more queries, u may contact me on 9810550172.

---

From: Rakesh Chitkara <rakesh....@yahoo.com>
Sent: Sat, 4 December, 2010 8:41:38 PM
Subject: [HumJanenge] Presence of Advocate Before FAA or CIC - whether permissible

[PMK1504]

RTI CIC Appeal Procedure Rules 2005. Advocates are not allowed to
accompany appellants during appeals there.

The Appellant may be assisted by any person during the process of
appeal or while presenting his points, but the assistant may not be a
legal practitioner.

[PMK1504]

Dear Sh Gupta

1 of your emails IDs has been banned. Now you are circulating your
contact details like mobile number using your other ID

PMK.

[RTI Movement]

An advocate not allowed unless prior permission sought.

 

RIM

[Abhinav]

Hi
This question was raised to Mr. Subramanyam on DD News programme "Jaanne ka haq" this morning at 10:30 am

applicant can be accompanied by an advocate  before the CIC - Yes
                                                                     before First App. Authority - Not sure

Thanks
Abhinav Agrwal
Oracle India
Noida

[M.K. Gupta]

How it can be concluded that I am circulating number?  I have not given my number to all the members but to Shri Rakesh Chitkara, advocate who has raised some query for saving the time of both to discuss the matter on phone rather than receiving the mail and reply and than supplementary query and again reply but perhaps that has gone to other members also.   As the column of 'to' was blank in the mail I received,  I presumed that he has sent the mail to me directly. Now, I am recollecting the rule that we cann't give our phone numbers in mails. 

---

From: PMK1504 <humjanen...@gmail.com>
To: humja...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sat, 4 December, 2010 8:49:23 PM
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Presence of Advocate Before FAA or CIC - whether permissible

[Anil Agrawal]

Rule 15 of the the Central Information Commission

(Management) Regulations, 2007 says

The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek

the assistance of any person while presenting his case before the

Commission and the person representing him may not be a legal

practitioner.

(v) If an appellant or complainant at his discretion decides not to be

present either personally or through his duly authorized

representative during the hearing of an appeal or complaint before

the Commission, the Commission may pronounce its decision or

order in the matter ex parte

There is no rule about first appellate authority separately.

Anil

[Sidharth Misra]

CIC Management Regulation has been rendered invalid by the Delhi High Court.

Sidharth

[sandeep kumar]

yes, u can do it. there is no bar on advocate accompanying appellant.
regards

On 12/4/10, Rakesh Chitkara <rakesh....@yahoo.com> wrote:

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta
989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
Phone: 91-99929-31181

[Anil Agrawal]

Barried?

Then what is this?

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION 

 ..…

F.No.CIC/AT/A/2008/00215 

Dated, the 30th  June, 2008. 

Appellant  :  Shri Yogendra N. Chudgar 

Respondents  :  Income Tax Department 

 This second-appeal came up for hearing on 26.06.2008, pursuant to 

Commission’s hearing notice dated 02.05.2008. Appellant was present through 

his Counsel, Shri Devesh Bhatt, while  the respondents were represented by  

Shri A.K.Bhardwaj, Commissioner of Income Tax-II, Baroda. 

Anil

On Mon, Dec 6, 2010 at 6:18 PM, PMK1504 <humjanen...@gmail.com> wrote:

Sir

Are you aware of Rules 7(2) and 7(4) of the RTI Central Information
Commission Appeal Procedure Rules, 2005 which explicitly bars legal
practitioners from representing the appellant ?

PMK

[Ashok Kumar]

Sir,

Rule 7(4) is reproduced below :-

7(4) The appellant or the complainant, as the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person in the process of the appeal while presenting his points and the person representing him may not be a legal practitioner.

It is clear from the above that the appellant or complainant may be assisted by any person, even if he is not a legal practitioner.

Further, if one goes through CIC decisions at random from their website, one would find a number of lawyers have assisted citizens. e.g Mr Prashant Bhushan has assisted a number of people in the CIC. Everyone knows he is a reputed Senior Advocate. A number of Public Authorities are also assisted/represented by lawyers.

AK Anand

---------- Original message ----------
From:"PMK1504"< humjane nge....@gmail.com >
Date: 6 Dec 10 18:19:46
Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Presence of Advocate Before FAA or CIC - whether permissible

To: humja...@googlegroups.com

Sir

Are you aware of Rules 7(2) and 7(4) of the RTI Central Information
Commission Appeal Procedure Rules, 2005 which explicitly bars legal
practitioners from representing the appellant ?

PMK

On 12/6/10, sandeep kumar <drsan...@gmail.com> wrote:
> yes, u can do it. there is no bar on advocate accompanying appellant.
> regards
>
> On 12/4/10, Rakesh Chitkara <rakesh....@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Whether the applicant can be accompanied by an Advocate before the First
>> Appellate Authority or the CIC ?
>> Can I please be guided on this point ?
>>
>> Kind Regards,
>> Rakesh Chitkara, AdvocateDelhi High Court9891678009
>>
>>
>
>
> --

> Dr . Sandeep Kumar Gupta

> 989, Sector 15-A, Opposite bishnoi Colony, Hisar-125001, INDIA
> Phone: 91-99929-31181
>

Dear humjanenge.owner! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now!

Dear humjanenge ! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now!

[M.K. Gupta]

I intend to file an RTI for a direct answer from the CIC. I am going to ask for both, FAA and CIC.

---

From: Ashok Kumar <im...@in.com>
To: humjanenge <humja...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tue, 7 December, 2010 3:07:41 AM

[Sarbajit Roy]

There is lack of clarity on this issue within the CIC

This is the position:

1) An appellant can be "assisted" by any person (incl. a legal practitioner).
2) An appellant cannot be "represented" by a legal practitioner.

What this means is

A) The legal practitioner may accompany the appellant to assist him.
The legal practitioner may not speak or address arguments to the
Commission.

B) The appellant cannot send a legal practitioner to "represent" him.

If there is any breach / deviation from this, it is a contravention of
rules, and a vigilance matter.

On 2 occasions when I have protested the presence of advocates, CCIC
allowed them to speak to "assist the Commission"

Presence of advocates in CIC proceedings greatly distorts the
principles of natural justice. Whenever any of our members is affected
he should file a vigilance complaint to the CCIC promptly.

Sarbajit

On 12/7/10, Ashok Kumar <im...@in.com> wrote:
> Sir,Rule 7(4) is reproduced below :7(4) The appellant or the complainant, as

> the case may be, may seek the assistance of any person in the process of the
> appeal while presenting his points and the person representing him may not

> be a legal practitioner.It is clear from the above that the appellant or

> complainant may be assisted by any person, even if he is not a legal

> practitioner.Further, if one goes through CIC decisions at random from their

[M.K. Gupta]

Apart from Mr. Prashant Bhushan, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Amit Rekhi s/o. Shri L N Rekhi, Sr. Advocate represented a case against the UPSC was respondnent.  As far as I remembers, Mr. Amit Rekhi represented on behalf of the Applicants who appreared for the IAS exams.  

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sro...@gmail.com>
To: humja...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tue, 7 December, 2010 9:49:12 AM

Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Presence of Advocate Before FAA or CIC - whether permissible

[sandeep kumar]

Please try to understand the lines. it means that the person can be
assisted by a person even if the assisting person is not a lawyer. it
does not mean that the assisting person has not to be a lawyer.

On 12/6/10, PMK1504 <humjanen...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sir
>
> Are you aware of Rules 7(2) and 7(4) of the RTI Central Information
> Commission Appeal Procedure Rules, 2005 which explicitly bars legal
> practitioners from representing the appellant ?
>
> PMK
>
> On 12/6/10, sandeep kumar <drsan...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Sarbajit Roy]

It is clear as crystal that anyone (even an advocate) can "assist" the
appellant at any stage of the appeal proceedings. But does assistance
extend to pleading the case for the appellant. In such a situation how
does a CPIO who is not legally qualified be provided natural justice ?
Similarly ditto for an appellant (without counsel) who is facing a
CPIO who is being assisted by an advocate. How about a CIC bench which
finds advocates before them (who have accompanied one of the parties)
and starts openly soliciting their legal advice / opinion in the guise
of assisting the Commission?

IMHO, the working rule here is that an advocate is an officer of the
Court governed by the Advocates Act, they should not start practising
before tribunals where they are explicitly barred from "representing"
appellants. The CIC should not allow them to speak if the other
parties object. I seem to recall a HC decision (Kerala / Madras ?)
which we discussed on one of these RTI groups a month back which also
touched on the question of whether advocates are absolutely barred
from appearing in lower fora, and which allowed it in certain
circumstances.

Sarbajit

[Ashok Kumar]

Dear Mr Sarbajit,

Some of the officers who represent the PIOs/FAAs are from their Legal Branch (e.g Judge Advocate General's Branch Officers in the case of Defence PIOs). Such officers are also lawyers by virtue of the fact that they are registered with the Bar Association, even though they may not be practicing in the Courts. What would be the position if such officers represent the CPIO/PIO/FAA? Wouldn't that be a vigilance matter/complaint as well?

Brgds

AK Anand

Dear sroy.mb! Get Yourself a cool, short @in.com Email ID now!

[Abhimanyu]

as long as advocates are pleading / assissting applicants within framwork of RTI ACt there is no issue at all.

 

advocates shall not start pleading under IPC or other acts and laws.

 

once again I repeat . as long as advocates are assitting RTI applicants under the frame work of RTI ACT there is no issue at all.

[M.K. Gupta]

Yes, I agree with Mr. Sarabjit that if the applicant/complainant objects, the Advocates should not be allowed to plead.  This is must in the interest of justice.  However, if the Applicant is assisted by an advocate, the CPIO is also entitled for the same.  This means that he can also object to the advocate assiting the Applicant is the CPIO is without such help.  I, therefore, in my reply said that advocate can appear as Authorised Representative (without the legal costume and should not disclose that he is a legal practiotioner). It is a different matter the he (like Mr. Prashant Bhushan or other leading advocate) is identitified by the Information Commissioner but in such a situation the IC cannot object to this.  I presume that the advocates are appearing before the Commission on the aforesaid stipulation barring few exceptions.

---

From: Sarbajit Roy <sro...@gmail.com>
To: humja...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tue, 7 December, 2010 5:08:38 PM

Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Presence of Advocate Before FAA or CIC - whether permissible

[Dwarakanath]

Friends, Here the question is not of eligibility to be represented by an Advocate or not, the question appears to be whether an advocate can represent a client before the public information Commissioner.  Any ordinary person can ofcourse represent an rti aplicant either with the written power of representation or  represent a rti applicant personally present with an oral power granted before the PIO.   In the case of an Advocate registered under the Advocates Act, he has check what are the covenants he has made and subscribed as true to the best of his knowledge or whatever agrements he has signed while enlisting and continuing as an Advocate matters more.  If there is no bar on representing an rti applicant, under the Advocates Act or the Oath he has subscribed dos not debar, he certainly can do so.  Regards, dwarakanathdm bangalore 

[PMK1504]

The Central RTI Rules (R.7.4) specifically prohibit advocates (and
other legal practitioners) from representing appellants at CIC.

PMK

[Ravindran P M]

Almost three or four years back an advocate had appeared in a hearing before the Central CIC. The public authority was the delhi hc but the advocate was representing a private company. I had sought information about a case pending with the delhi hc against this company.

 

Just about a month or two back in another appeal where the SBI was the public authority, the FAA was accompanied by the legal advisor who did all the talking at the hearing.

 

regards n bw

 

ravi

[bobby ramakant]

RIGHT TO INFORMATION- A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?
Naveen Tewari
Published in: The Hindustan Times, 13 October 2011
************************

THE FIRST SHOCK CAME WHEN THE U.P. GOVERNMENT APPOINTED THE STATE CHIEF INFORMATION COMMISSIONER AND THE INFORMATION COMMISSIONERS.

ALARM BELLS STARTED RINGING IN OUR MINDS.

THE APPOINTMENTS RAISED SERIOUS QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW SERIOUSLY THE GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH HAD TAKEN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE ACT IN LETTER AND SPIRIT


The Right to Information Act was passed in India in the year 2005. But the founding fathers of our constitution had already enshrined it in the constitution as a fundamental right under article 19(1-a). The right was not exercised by the people due to their general ignorance of law and also because it was not developed into an implementable form with a delivery mechanism and system.

Slowly over the years the pressure for transparency in governance and accountability in administration increased to a very high level.  The enactment of the Right to Information Act eased some direct stress on the government by giving an outlet to people to seek reasons for their problems.

This Act gave us sky high hopes, by fooling us into believing, that our elected representatives, our lawmakers were serious and sincere about bringing about positive changes in the way they govern us.
However, the future it projected in terms of transparency was too good to be true. But tormented as one was like the rest of the country by the indignities that were heaped on us by the corrupt and corrupting government, one decidedto go with the flow of wide eyedoptimism the Act’s passage generated.

Having foundthis ultimate panacea of all our ailments we enthusiastically  embarked upon a community effort of spreading awareness about it. Training camps were organized on how to write an RTI application, how to file the first appeal,  how to file a complaint or second appeal. We went from office to office to find out who were the Public Information Officers and whether appellate authorities were appointed or not. Even a preliminary  general survey of different offices filled us first with despair because we found that hardly any of the offices had taken it seriously. Either the PIOs were not appointed or they themselves denied the knowledge of being the PIO of the particular department. Our despair slowly turned to hope when we saw that our enquiries stirred the sleeping system and soon enough the PIOs were to be found in their respective offices. In the beginning there was initial resistance in the departments to receiving and processing the applications. But a sustained effort by a large number of applicants and pressure from some organized groups  like ours started wearing the resistance down. It helped that the group  had some very senior retired bureaucrats working as  volunteers. The media also gave priority coverage to any news concerning RTI and both the successes and failures were magnified to draw attention of the people and the government.    

The first shock came when the U.P. Government appointed the State Chief Information Commissioner and the Information Commissioners. Alarm bells started ringing in our minds. The appointments raised serious questions about how seriously the government of Uttar Pradesh had taken the implementation of the Act in letter and spirit. The government of the day treated this law with the same casual contempt as it had treated other institutions and instruments of governance. The Commission was doomed to become a defunct court like the consumer courts, the Bar Council and the Press Council etc. The post of commissioners became choices for rewardingfriendly journalists, sycophants and loyal bureaucrats. Although the writer of this column raised the alarm during the meetings of our group unfortunately no one saw the writing on the wall. The damage was done. The Commission was crippled before it could take even baby steps in the direction of enforcing the Right to Information Act.

In this bleak scenario some stray incidents took place preventing the fluttering flame of hope from sniffing out. As a result of group efforts and also due to some extent his ill luck, we managed to get the SCIC suspended from office for misconduct. The Supreme Court put its seal on his fate. Barring that lone exception, we could not prevent the government from making further appointments in total violation of the norms and procedure and in clear contradiction of the provisions of the RTI Act.

The public by and large is in the same ambivalent state of despair and hope. Some front rung leaders of the movement realize their folly and admit in private the failure of the experiment. While all our hopes and aspirations from the RTI Act have not been fulfilled it has provided succor and courage  to many. There is already a sizeable number of cases where the sustained use of RTI has resulted in the corrupt being shamed or punished, some opening up of government systems and information even if forced by the courts, of creating a fear in the officialdom.

NAVEEN TEWARI
(The author is the State Convener of U.P. Right to Information Campaign, National Alliance of People’s Movements - NAPM. Email: nct...@gmail.com)

-------------------
Published in: The Hindustan Times, 13 October 2011
-------------------

[sandeep kumar]

Mr HC Arora, advocate, president rti activists federation, punjab and
haryana has filed a writ petition in the punjab and haryana high
court challenging the selection of some of the information
commissioners in punjab and haryana. the court has been requested to
direct the governments to frame a proper procedure. the next hearing
is in december. let us wait for its outcome. The same case (if outcome
is positive) can be used to challenge appointments elsewhere.

--
Dr. Sandeep Kumar Gupta

[Sarbajit Roy]

The Delhi High Court (Division bench) has already ruled on this
concerning appointment if Central ICs..

It should be recalled that the petition / appeal was filed by a set of
Mumbai RTI "activists" (aka "Parasites") who were hand-in-glove with
DoPT to destroy RTI Act. I will not name them
again here because most of them were too ashamed to stay on in this
group after their debacle which we repeatedly cautioned them not to
pursue.

Sarbajit

[Vaghela B D]

Dear All 6 yrs on, Gujarat’s RTI record in poor shape- http://www.indianexpress.com/news/6-yrs-on-gujarats-rti-record-in-poor-shape/859291/0 There is only one IC against 10. No CIC at all. Regards. --  (Babubhai Vaghela) C 202, Shrinandnagar V, Makarba Road Vejalpur, Ahmedabad - 380051 M -  94276 08632 http://twitter.com/BabubhaiVaghela About me in Annexure at - http://bit.ly/9xsHFj http://www.youtube.com/user/vaghelabd (Administrator - Google Group - Right to Information Act 2005) http://groups.google.com/group/Right-to-Information-Act-2005/about?hl=en --- On Thu, 10/13/11, sandeep kumar <drsan...@gmail.com> wrote: